Sure there are, cities in the US are starting to build better alternatives already.
> The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation.
True, the article does make it seem like that. Because that's what happened, it's a fact that US auto industry propaganda led to the establishment of jaywalking laws.
> Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.
You seem to be wanting to litigate the safety of mixing cars and pedestrians. Nobody here is arguing that walking in the street is safe. The article is the story of what happened, which isn't up for debate. We can argue about whether crossing the street should be legal, if you want, but there are many countries in the world where it's not illegal to cross the street. There are many people in the US who think it shouldn't be illegal, and also think crossing a busy street is a bad idea.
Of course the propaganda was a part of the laws being created, that is clear. But the article is trying to say they are the sole reason. That is not clear and is up for debate.
Sometimes people dont follow accepted standards unless that standard is legislated. If the standard is important enough, it should be legislated. This standard will vary from person to person, but eventually we resolve the issue and either legislate or not.
I think enough people would have agreed that jaywalking should be legislated about to have it actually written into law with or without auto industry marketing.
Logic and speculation doesn't explain history. If you think the propaganda wasn't the only reason, then bring some historical evidence rather than opinion.
The fact that some other countries don't have jaywalking laws, even though everyone everywhere agrees that walking in the street can be dangerous is already evidence that jaywalking laws are not a given.
> I think enough people would have agreed that jaywalking should be legislated about to have it actually written into law with or without auto industry marketing.
Someone else already mentioned this here, but that is not how US traffic laws are created. The public doesn't have to agree or disagree with it. It can sometimes influence the process, but public opinion doesn't usually make or break traffic laws.
Sure there are, cities in the US are starting to build better alternatives already.
> The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation.
True, the article does make it seem like that. Because that's what happened, it's a fact that US auto industry propaganda led to the establishment of jaywalking laws.
> Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.
You seem to be wanting to litigate the safety of mixing cars and pedestrians. Nobody here is arguing that walking in the street is safe. The article is the story of what happened, which isn't up for debate. We can argue about whether crossing the street should be legal, if you want, but there are many countries in the world where it's not illegal to cross the street. There are many people in the US who think it shouldn't be illegal, and also think crossing a busy street is a bad idea.